The NYT's article is saying 19 million were originally ordered. When I name the publication, as opposed to the sources, it also means the people they are using as sources in the article. So it is referring to Semenza and his supply chain sources as well. I thought that was understood.

Semenza in the NYT's article is saying 19 million were originally ordered for January. So the NYT's is essentially saying it too.

No, the actual words in the article were: "Apple had expected to order 19 million displays". It does not say that 19 million were originally ordered.

Quote:

Originally Posted by PatNY

Regardless of why he hasn't lowered his Q4 2012 estimate, you are at least admitting it was incorrect when you said in your prior comment that he had lowered it.

He hasn't given a new estimate, but indicated that the value might be lower.

Quote:

Originally Posted by PatNY

I never said that. I said from all the evidence, it appears Semenza revised his estimates for Q1 2013 based on the cuts in orders in January.

Ignoring the fact that he said that his theory is that the ramp was too much to sustain.